Saturday, October 27, 2018

A larger vision than just increased material wealth. Democrats need a better alternative than they have to Republican thought

Very interesting column in New York Times, The Materialist Party, by David Brooks, October 22 2018. It's about what seems like the lack of a big picture vision beyond our various materialistic wants and needs. As Republicans seem to be big on talk about growing material wealth, there is an opportunity for Democrats to present a different vision. Such alternative vision seems to be lacking.

In his column, Brooks says the big push for Democrats is to talk about healthcare. Preserving coverage for preexisting conditions and so forth; like just another basket of goodies.

Yes, a better vision of how we live on this planet is lacking, but I got to thinking that even in the healthcare debate, a bigger vision can emerge. Out of extending coverage comes a bigger vision of compassion. Could be the vision of a population that's willing to pay more, if they are so lucky to be more wealthy, so that those that are less fortunate can have some also. Or, maybe a vision of people earning less, if they work in the lucrative top positions of the healthcare and insurance fields. Earning a bit less so universal healthcare can be easier to provide.

There's also the bigger vision of health, itself. Healthier lifestyles so that universal healthcare can be easier to provide. A society of less stress, more exercise, better diets. You get the picture. A society better for the environment as well. Connecting the dots.

In his column, he talked about the need to go beyond just the box of goodies, like free college, or whatever and to come up with a larger vision of a better life. In my own thinking, I try and see how some of these goodies can fit into a bigger vision.

In his column, he also talked about identity politics, like LGBTQ rights. Is that just another box of goodies like tax cuts for the middle class, or the entrepreneurial class? I see fitting that into a bigger vision as well. Reducing population growth. A society more open to feminist and LGBTQ issues tends to place the breaks on procreation, a bit. Lower footprint to the environment. How about the single life living in an urban apartment versus the stereotype of family life sprawling out into the big house in the suburbs? It's a bigger vision I keep thinking about. How these pieces of the puzzle fit together. I know there are always exceptions to stereotypes; like not all families live in the suburbs and not all people in the suburbs are more wasteful, but I hope you get the picture.

1 comment:

Once again, Robert, you raise a very cogent point. So long as the issues are material and not human, will we really have a better society? Have we lost the vision of a better way to live? Is having more money in one's pocket really the best determinant of a healthy society?